1. State Cadre posts of Programmer (2000-3200) were advertised by the Jammu & Kashmir Service Selection Board vide advertisement notice no. 3 of 1997 dated 29.4.1997. Applications were invited from the eligible candidates having the academic and technical qualifications of B.A/BSc./B.Com./ M.A./M.Sc. with PGDCA.. Petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates applied for the posts. They were called for the interview also but on assessment of their merit and on the basis of qualification and interview respondents nos. 5 to 7 have been selected while as the petitioner has been dropped. 2. Aggrieved of his non selection/appointment on the post the petitioner has, through the medium of the present petition challenged the selection of private respondents 5 to 7 on various grounds. It is alleged by him that the selection has been made arbitrarily without following due procedure and by showing favouritism to the selected candidates. The Board according to the petitioner, has not acted upon the criteria formulated by it, while making selection for the post, and in violation of the said criteria it has selected the candidates who were not at all eligible for the interview. The petitioner has in the circumstances prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned process of selection list of private respondents 5 to 7. He has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to make recruitment of the candidates for the posts on account of merit and other required qualification of the candidates who have applied for the same and were found eligible. He has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner also for the post of programmer in case of availability of post. 3. Respondents have filed their detailed reply to the present petition. It is stated by them that the respondents 5 to 7 have been selected on the basis of merit obtained by them in the selection process. In para 5 of their reply they have given the petitioners merit position viz. a viz. the respondents as under: - Petitioners Merit Position Weightage for academic Qualifications in points Vivo voce Total 46.29+10 06 62.29 Respondents Merit Position Qualification weightage Vivo voce Total (Respondent No. 5) 4 years Diploma 50.07 + 15+8 73.07 (Respondent No.6) B.E. Computer with Addl. degrees (Respondent No 7) 37.05 + 15+16 68.05 Same as above 37.07 + 15+16 68.05 4. the respondents as under: - Petitioners Merit Position Weightage for academic Qualifications in points Vivo voce Total 46.29+10 06 62.29 Respondents Merit Position Qualification weightage Vivo voce Total (Respondent No. 5) 4 years Diploma 50.07 + 15+8 73.07 (Respondent No.6) B.E. Computer with Addl. degrees (Respondent No 7) 37.05 + 15+16 68.05 Same as above 37.07 + 15+16 68.05 4. Respondents 6 & 7 have also filed their reply. They have stated that the petitioner was not eligible for the post as he has obtained the diploma certificate from Able Industries Data Consultant (P) Ltd. Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar and that the Institute is not a recognized Institute by the University of Kashmir. 5. The petitioner has in his rejoinder reiterated the pleas taken by him in the present petition and has stated that as per the advertisement notice B. E. computer was not prescribed qualification for the post but the respondents who possess the said qualification were considered and selected against the posts. 6. The present matter was considered earlier also and by means of order dated 10.7.2007 this Court found that the respondents have, while making selection to the candidates taken due care of the merit and qualification and other factors relevant for making appointments. The Court also found that the petitioner has obtained low merit viz. a viz. the private respondents as such he was not selected. On this count the Court did not find any force in the pleas raised regarding the merit position of the petitioner viz. a viz. the respondents but the Court found that the petitioners plea that the respondents had changed the criteria during the selection process need consideration. It was found that the respondent-Board had not filed any reply on this issue. The Court, therefore, thought it fit to provide an opportunity to the Board to respond to this plea of the petitioner. 7. Respondents have in compliance to the directions of the Court filed their supplementary affidavit on 24.7.2007. It is stated by them that the advertisement notice no. 3 of 1997 was issued on 29.7.1997 and the criteria for the posts advertised was framed on 19.1.1998, thereafter the interview were conducted w.e.f. 30.6.1998 to 1.9.1998. The selection list was announced on 23.10.1998 and forwarded to the intending department on 10.12.1998. The respondents state that the contentions of the petitioner that criteria was changed is not correct. 3 of 1997 was issued on 29.7.1997 and the criteria for the posts advertised was framed on 19.1.1998, thereafter the interview were conducted w.e.f. 30.6.1998 to 1.9.1998. The selection list was announced on 23.10.1998 and forwarded to the intending department on 10.12.1998. The respondents state that the contentions of the petitioner that criteria was changed is not correct. As per the records available there is no mention or indication that the criteria adopted by the Board was either changed or amended during the course of selection. 8. Learned Counsel for the State had also produced record of the selection. 9. Before proceedings further it may be stated here that during the pendency of the present petition the petitioner on 18.9.2007 filed a review petition alongwith the condonation application (COD no. 2291 of 2007) for review of order dated 10.7.2007 passed by this Court. 10. The petitioner states that the appointment of respondents has been made fraudulently and in most unfair manner and that the selection process was manipulated and the private respondents, who in terms of the advertisement notice were not eligible even to seek selection to the post of programmer, have been selected and appointed. He submits that he has taken various pleas in the petition but the Court has not properly appreciated contentions of the petitioner as such there is error apparent on the face of record due to which the order needs review. 11. Since the review application has been filed beyond the period of limitation the petitioner has alongwith the petition filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition. 12. I have considered the grounds taken in the condonation of delay application. I find the petitioner has not given sufficient cause for the delay in filing the said petition. The order was passed by the Court on 10.7.2007 in presence of the learned counsels and right from that date the petitioner™s counsel is appearing in the present petition. If the petitioner found that there was error on the face of record he should have moved an application within the period of limitation prescribed. The application has been filed without disclosing sufficient cause for the delay accordingly the petition is dismissed. 13. Heard. I have considered the matter. 14. If the petitioner found that there was error on the face of record he should have moved an application within the period of limitation prescribed. The application has been filed without disclosing sufficient cause for the delay accordingly the petition is dismissed. 13. Heard. I have considered the matter. 14. In view of the order dated 10.7.2007 I will restrict adjudication of the issue only to the plea regarding change of criteria during the selection process. 15. Mr. Attar learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the academic qualifications prescribed in the advertisement notice for the post of programmer which is as B.A. B.Sc./B.Com. M.A/M.Sc. with PGDCA. He has referred to the reply submitted by the respondents to show that the private respondents possess qualification of B.E. computer and while making selection due weightage has been given to the higher qualification of the respondents which made it possible for them to steel a march over the petitioner. 16. On perusal of the record made available by Mr. Magray, AAG it appears that the posts of programmer from Finance Department Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir were notified vide notification no. 3 of 1997 issued by the Board. The qualification required for the post as indicated above is graduation/ post-graduation with PG DCA.. 678 applications were received by the Board for the posts and the break up of the 5 posts as per the reservation rules was as under: - Open RBA SC = Total 3 1 1 05 17. The candidates were called for interview in the ratio of 1: 10.61 eligible candidates in open as well as reserve categories were called for interview after short listing the candidates. 52 candidates appeared for the interview both at Jammu and Srinagar and the weightage for selection of the posts was fixed by the Board as under: - i) Weightage to basic qualification i.e. Graduation including Eng. Graduation 65 Points ii) Weightage to one year dip. in computerization 05 Points) iii) Weightage to 02 years dip. In computerization 10 points) 10 Points iv) Weightage to 03 years dip. in computerization 15 Points) B.E. Computer. v) Viva-Voce 20 Points Total 100 Points 18. The selection committee has considered the following factors while making assessment of the candidates: 1. General suitability of the candidate 2. Apptituted of knowledge of the subject 3. Proficiency in discipline. 19. In computerization 10 points) 10 Points iv) Weightage to 03 years dip. in computerization 15 Points) B.E. Computer. v) Viva-Voce 20 Points Total 100 Points 18. The selection committee has considered the following factors while making assessment of the candidates: 1. General suitability of the candidate 2. Apptituted of knowledge of the subject 3. Proficiency in discipline. 19. On completion of the selection process the following respondents have been selected for the posts: I Open Category 1. Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Parshad R/o Ramban Teh. Ramban Distt; Doda B.E. Computer I-J 73.07 2. Shri Wajahat Mehmod S/o Sh. Gh. Nabi Thakur R/o 14/1 Khalifapora Khanyar Tehsil & Distt. Sgr. B.E. Computer 13-S 68.05 3. Shri Arvinder Singh S/o Late Dr. Inderjeet Singh R/o Patoosa Tehsil Sopore District Baramulla (Three candidates only) B.E. Computer 3-S 68.05 II. Schedule Caste Category 1. Sh. Sunil Bhagat S/o. Sh. Sher Singh Bhagat R/o H.No. 288 Sarwal New Plots Jammu Tehsil Distt; Jammu (One candidate only) B.Tech. (Computer Science) 30-J 64.32 III RBA Category 1. Sh. Jaweed Amed Farooqi S/o Gh. Jeelani Farooqi R/o Naloosa Tehsil Suri Distt; Baramulla (One candidate only) M.Sc. Electronics 2-S 59.83 20. The comparative merit of the petitioner and the private respondents is as under: Merit position of the petitioner Private respondents Name Bashir Ahmad Mantoo Sandeep Kumar Wajahat Mehmood Thakur Arvinder Singh Qul/Tech. B.Sc/ B.E. -do- -do- Qul. 2 Yrs Computer Marks Obt. 1282/ 1040/ 2856/ 1025/ in grade 1800 1350 5010 1800 %age of Marks 71.22 77.04 57.00 56.94 Wtg. at (68) 46.29 50.07 37.05 37.01 Addl.(p) 10 15 15 15 Total 56.29 65.07 52.05 52.01 Viva voce 06 08 16 16 Total 62.29 73.07 68.05 68.01 21. Perusal of the record would show that originally the qualification required was only graduation/ post graduation with PG DCA. Applications were invited on this basis and from the candidates possessing such qualification. During the process of the selection, however, a preference was given to the candidates possessing B.E Computer which is not a prescribed qualification at all in the advertisement notice. 22. Mr. Attar has 9sic0 on P.M. Lata & Anor v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2003 (3) SCC 541 and Raj Kumar Pandita v. State of J&K & Ors. 1988 SLJ 488 in support of his plea that the respondent could not have changed the criteria during the process of selection. 23. 22. Mr. Attar has 9sic0 on P.M. Lata & Anor v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2003 (3) SCC 541 and Raj Kumar Pandita v. State of J&K & Ors. 1988 SLJ 488 in support of his plea that the respondent could not have changed the criteria during the process of selection. 23. In P.M. Lata™s case (supra) the Apex Court held that consideration of the candidate on the ground of having higher qualification was not justified. Where the qualification prescribed for the post in the advertisement published in Gazette notification was ˜passed in TTC™ (Trained Teachers Certificate), instead of selecting holders of TTC those holding B.Ed degree were selected on the basis that B.Ed is a higher qualification than T.T.C, it was held that in terms of advertisement B.Ed, degree holders were not eligible for selection. The Court found that B.Ed, cannot be treated as higher qualification than TTC. 24. In Raj Kumar Pandita™s case (supra) this Court while examining the issue relating to admission to MD course found that the government changed the criteria for selection. The Court observed that the respondents could not change the criteria for selection after the advertisement notice was issued. 25. It is well settled law now as has been held by the Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512 that rules of game cannot be changed afterwards. The selection criteria has to be prescribed in advance. 26. In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in P.M. Lata™s case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 1 find the respondents have not dealt with the case in a proper manner. They have given weightage to the candidates possessing higher qualification of B.E. computer while as no such provision was made in the advertisement notice. Thus the weightage has been given to the qualification which was not shown in the advertisement notice at all which amounts to change of the criteria on the basis of which selection has been made. 27. In these circumstances I find due weight in the pleas taken in the present petition. 28. The selection has been made in the year 1998 and the private respondents are working on the post for the last 10 years. 27. In these circumstances I find due weight in the pleas taken in the present petition. 28. The selection has been made in the year 1998 and the private respondents are working on the post for the last 10 years. I do not find it to just and proper to disturb their appointment as such by allowing the present petition I direct the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner against one of the post of programmer which may be available with the respondents. Let the consideration be accorded and order in this behalf be passed within a period of three months from the date this order is served on the respondents. 29. Petition is allowed accordingly.